"Another possible danger is that in presenting the gospel to the lost and in defending God's truth we ourselves will seem to be false. It is time for Christian people to recognize that the defense of this modern, young-Earth, Flood-geology creationism is simply not truthful. It is simply not in accord with the facts that God has given. Creationism must be abandoned by Christians before harm is done. The persistent attempt of the creationist movement to get their points of view established in educational institutions can only bring harm to the Christian cause. Can we seriously expect non-Christian educational leaders to develop a respect for Christianity if we insist on teaching the brand of science that creationism brings with it? Will not the forcing of modern creationism on the public simply lend credence to the idea already entertained by so many intellectual leaders that Christianity, at least in its modern form, is sheer anti-intellectual obscurantism? I fear that it will."This quote was found on PZ Meyer's Pharyngula blog, in a random quote generator.
[Christianity and the Age of the Earth, by Davis Young, Zondervan 1982. p. 163.]
Friday, March 25, 2011
Quote of the Day 03.25.11
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
Too late. It's already happened. I'm trying in vain to defend smart Christianity, but most atheists out there associate all of it with Ray Comfort and Answers In Genesis. Every form of Christianity is no longer even a live option to many people out there.
YEC is literally Christianity's cancer.
"YEC is literally Christianity's cancer."
I think this is only true for those who choose irrationality as their own religion. Denial on the basis of YEC is merely an excuse for what they would have believed anyway. For a great many Atheists, rejection is an emotional response, one developed in adolescence through young adulthood, one that gives release from the consequences of cherished character flaws. One of the worldview differences between Christianity and Atheism is that Christianity encourages character development, while Atheism encourages the indulgence of character flaws - which are seen not as flaws but as diversity to be tolerated and indulged.
"will seem to be false"
Thats funny, the unbeliever allready sees you s false.
"It is simply not in accord with the facts that God has given"
So God gave us the fact of a serious Horizon problem with an old universe where a secondary assumption of a magical inflationary period was invented to put the explosion of the universe into instantaneous hyper-speed and to then almost instantly pull it out of hyper-speed, without any describable mechanisms of acceleration and deceleration to explain the equilibrium of 2.7 degrees Kelvin?
"Creationism must be abandoned by Christians before harm is done"
The only harm done by abandoning Creation is to the Bible itself where dropping Creation gains multiple theological issues and incoherency.
"can only bring harm to the Christian cause"
What cause? The cause of the Christian is to spread the Gospel, not win a popularity contest. This is no different than embracing homosexuality etc. to "further the cause".
"is sheer anti-intellectual obscurantism? I fear that it will"
Maybe you haven't noticed, but it allready is. Using Creation as a scapegoat is a joke.
Bad Theology FTW.
C.A.I.,
I'm not certain that I understand your position. The point was to abandon "Young Earth" creationism, not creation in general. Young Earth creationism (YEC) is not biblical. The origin of YEC is taking supposed life spans and attributing those to geneologies in the "begats". But the "begats" are likely to have recorded "houses" as was the early custom, not necessarily individual generations. To insist on the age of the earth as extrapolated from the "begats" is extra-biblical.
From an objective observer point of view, the earth cannot be only 6k years old, unless the creator intended specifically to dupe us with fake natural formations. I have been in the Grand Canyon enough to know that it did not occur due to the release of flood waters, and that the layers that are revealed by the slow erosion were not laid down rapidly. I have observed the sea shell fossils atop of Rocky Mountain peaks. In the desert southwest of the USA, wind erosion has left occasional mesas thousands of feet high, with no sign of the missing red and yellow dirt which blew to who knows where. The rise and demise of huge forests into the fossilized trees of the Petrified Forest did not occur in 6k years.
If Truth does not correspond with Fact, then one of those must be adjusted. In this case, there is no reason to accept the "truth" of a 6,000 year old earth.
Christ never said it. It is not a necessary part of Christianity. It is highly likely false. So it should be discarded. Keeping false doctrine as a necessary part of Christianity is bad in several ways.
YEC is a needless battle, a tilting against windmills, a fight for an unnecessary literal interpretation having no bearing on either the existence of a First Cause, nor on a personal deity, nor on the message of salvation, nor on the message of the continuous failures of humankind.
Along with being unnecessary, it also plays straight into the hands of the opposition, and that makes it - dare it say it? - evil.
In this sense, I agree with Martin. YEC is a cancer on Christianity.
I should also have mentioned: YEC is logically a rationalization. The answer is presupposed, and data is selected that fits the presupposed answer, while non-congruent data is rejected.
This means that YEC is anti-rational. Being anti-rational its acceptance is a defeat for the argument of a rational universe with a rational cause, placing YEC into cult status.
Further YEC commentary that may be of interest.
I came across this:
onlyagame.typepad.com/only_a_game/2006/08/ussher_nonsense.html
OK. I just read something that might be worth commenting on. Not related to the above, but the provocative passage had me mumbling to myself.
Can something as profound as metaphysics reach a point where it will cease to exist? To answer that, you have to understand the definition of the word metaphysics. It means "beyond physics", i.e "beyond the study of the phenomena of nature." Saying that metaphysics is beyond the study of nature suggests something supernatural. However, as nothing can exist outside of the Creation, then nothing is beyond being natural. Supernatural, therfore, is a word that contradicts itself.
"Supernatural" is an oxymoron, just like "an exact estimate", "clean dirt", "fresh frozen", and a "definite maybe." How can anything in Creation be beyond the natural? More likely, it is something beyond the understanding of physicists because it is too subtle to be included in today's physics.
Let's drop the use of the word supernatural. "Supernatural" implies that some things are permanently beyond our understanding and, in the New Reality, that attitude just doesn't make it any more. If something exists, it can be understood. The first step is to admit that it does exist.
- The Death of Metaphysics by Owen Waters
The "New Reality"? I'm speechless.
"Where there is no vision, the people perish."
Spoken as Truth, yet without proof:
” However, as nothing can exist outside of the Creation, then nothing is beyond being natural.”
Metaphysics includes a look at physics from outside physics, an analysis of the accuracy, procedures, limitations, truth value, and philosophy of physics and science in general. Supernatural existence can be inferred from things other than the word “metaphysics”. This piece was written in an atmosphere of ignorance, in pursuit of !knowledge (not-knowledge).
My thoughts exactly.
Modern and post-Modern "thinking" dismisses trancendence in principle. Time becomes the deity. The supernatural is reduced to what is not "known". But given enough time, everything is knowable. This is rather Promethean, aye?
I've seen YEC'ers who have their information down pat make mincemeat of Darwinists in public discussion forums before.
The "science" that materialists place their trust in has some cracks in it and is not as fully explained as some of them really hope that it was.
JD,
Do you by chance have a link to that? I'd be interested in the argument, thanks.
Not really Stan, but I'll tell you what though.
Just hang around Vox Day's blog and eventually you'll see it for yourself. Although Day himself doesnt argue for a Young Earth, some of the regulars there do, and quite convincingly.
More than once I've seen snarky, materialist know-it-alls whimper away and disappear with their tails between their legs.
Haha Ray Comfort was on the Atheist Experience yesterday. I know this is going to make Stan and Martin rage seeing the reputation of Christianity get trashed and affect "smart" christianity.
Ray Comfort is "smart" Christianity only to Atheists who cannot take on actual logic and rational analysis. I don't follow Ray Comfort, nor the trolls who think that trashing Ray is the epitome of Atheist thinking. I did go to Comfort's site once, and found nothing but grade school juvenelia in the comments. I think that Comfort must have the objective of demonstrating the endemic immaturity of Atheists to the Christian community, because that is what his site seems to do.
So, C.a.I, do you have a position to support? One requiring a logical underpinning? If so, make your case.
Question. Of all the world's religions, does the atheist "communiTy" regard Christianity particularly objectionable? And if so, why?
Atheists tend to be those who are in full rebellion against any constraints on their behaviors and thoughts. Hence the position that there are no absolutes. They have made themselves arbiters of all things, including truth which is declared relative.
Christianity is onerous to this type of thinking because it recognizes absolutes and that humans are not the arbiters of all things. This is hazardous to the complete freedom from authority and external control which Atheists crave for themselves. The idea of "freethought" is that there exists no box to think outside of, no boundaries and no foundational axioms... and this is declared to be "rational", which perverts the concept of rationality to mean baseless, foundationless, and therefore meaninglessness.
Christianity is perceived as a threat to anarchic thinking, and as a moral threat to anarchic morality, plus it is still a predominant part of American professed beliefs. This goads the Atheists into a combative frame of mind with actual skirmishes via the courts. Most Atheist activity, however, is via hyena-like bands of cackling juveniles who denigrate believers and beliefs. There is very little actual logic or measured rational argumentation from the Atheist camp; snark is the substitute.
There is very little actual logic or measured rational argumentation from the Atheist camp; snark is the substitute.
Ha! Nothing truer has been spoken. When outside the evolution/YEC debate, they have nothing to rational to say.
I made a video on the modal ontological argument: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zd9LjE4U-68
In several atheist forums, it invites very little rational engagement, but lots of childish snark.
"Derp! Derp! The ontological argument is infantile!"
"Then show how."
"I don't need to! It's so infantile! Derp derp!"
Nice job, Martin.
"Atheists tend to be those who are in full rebellion against any constraints on their behaviors and thoughts. Hence the position that there are no absolutes. They have made themselves arbiters of all things, including truth which is declared relative............"
Hahahahaha I ABSOLUTELY love these posts you make. Im definetly starting a collection of these along with your carrot/stick post.
Post a Comment